The Dominion. MONDAY, JULY 21, 1911. SOME CURIOUS ASSERTIONS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1187, 24 July 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, JULY 21, 1911. SOME CURIOUS ASSERTIONS.

—9 . . While the very elaborate explanations that have been and are still being made by interested parties associated with the Mokau transaction do not touch on the vital point at issue, the public may derive some amusement from the plight in which these various versions are landing their authors. Two letters which have been published in a contemporary from Mr. R. ll'Nab, exMinister for Lands, and chairman of the Mokau Land Company, and Mr. C. A. Loughnan, brother, we believe, of the Hon. It. A. Loughnan, M.L.C., and secretary of the Mokau Larid Company, set out in some detail the company's disclaimer, to having had anything to do with the purchase of the land from the Government. The company, we are told, bought the land from the syndicate, which in turn purchased it from Mr. Hermann Lewis. Me. M'Nab appears anxious to make it clear that he had no direct dealing with the Government in this transaction, and he is supported in this by others. In view of his candidature for tho Palmerston seat, however, he could with advantage have made an effort to explain also how he reconciled his present role as a speculator in the freehold of Native lands with his past professions on the land question as a Minister of the Crown. No doubt Mn. M'Nab will be able to

do this, and possibly he may be able also to show himself the public benefactor, studying only tho public interests, which some of those associated with the Mokau transaction would lead us to believe they all aro. Mr. M'Nad, in bis letter, is at variance with the statements of some of the other gentlemen who are defending the purchase. For instance, in correcting Mn. Massey be says:

Amongst other statement's of Mr. Masscy's is the area. It is not 50,000 acres us stated by Jlr. Jlassey, but Ki,ooo acres. Yet we find Mr. Dalziell, of Findlay and Dalziell, stating in his sum-ming-up of the benefits which have accrued from the alienation of this large block of Native lands to private land speculators: , Tho immediate settlement of an area of 53,000 acres of land which has remained idle, etc., etc. Which statement, we wonder, is the correct one! Of course it docs not really matter; any more than it matters when. Mr. 51' Nab, chairman of the company, says the company has bought the freehold of the land, and slr. Loughxan, secretary of the company, says it has not. Here arc their respective statements: Hit. M'NAB.' Hit. LOTJOnXAX. July 22. July 21. Tho syndicate sold No syndicate nurto tho C. mid B chased the. Jlokau Company interests Block from the in tho land and in- Maoris: nobody uurtercsts in the long chii.'cd the freehold lease of some 40 of the Block at alt. years, which had in days gone l>v been iriven over the land. Those two interests combined make tho freehold. Mr. LnuGHNAN for some reason apparently does not think it desirable to allow the impression to get abroad that his company purchased the "freehold , ' of this huge block of Native land. He in his subsequent remarks says the company only purchased "tho right to sell the Block in

small areas to the general public," which is perhaps more illuminating than Me. Loughnan quite meant it to be.

The anxiety that is being shown in certain quarters to make the alienation of this block of land appear quite the proper thing has led our morning contemporary into a rather awkward situation. In the course of its comments on the position it said: If any injustice had been threatened tho Maori owners, or had there been any impropriety about tho proceedings it is not too much to suppose that Mr. 8011, K.C., who ndvised a section of tho Natives, would have protected them. Unfortunately for-our contemporary and for the Government, which it was defending, Mr. H. D. Bell had his own views about the matter,.and they did not''a't'all'harmbnisei with" the Ministerial journal's assumptions. !In a letter dated July 21 correcting that journal, Mr. Bell said: ■ ■■ I did not advise the Natives to sell. On the contrary, my advice to them" was to refusn tho terms offered to them. . [Mr. Her man Lewis] offered tho Natives a largo sum in cash for tho freehold, but much less than half its actual value as land alone, without tho coal seanis discovered. It was clearly a niost improvident bargain for tho Natives, but the casli tempted them, as it has always tempted Natives, to sell their heritage for a mess of pottage.

Not only did Mr. Bell thus expose this impudent attempt to shelter behind some imaginary advice he had given to the Natives, but he went further and expressed an opinion on the general question of the alienation of this large block of land in the manner practised, which cannot fail to carry a great deal of weight. He wrote:

Let mo add that it never occurred t'o mo to advise the Natives that, in face of the law limiting tho acquisition of Native freehold land to 3000 acres, the Government would, without first laying the matter before. Parliament, in direct contravention of the recommendations of the Native Land Commission upon thess Mokau lands, issue an Order-in-Council authorising the purchase in one block by one person of more than 50,000 acres of Native , freehold. The Native Land Act' empowers tho Governor, when he finds it necessary "in tho public interest," to permit the acquisition of more than 3000 acres. I did not understand this as meaning power to authorise an extension from 3000 to 50,000, nor did I sas what public interest could be Eervcd. I do not see it now.

From the Ministerial journal's unfortunate inaccuracies to Sir John Findlay's utterances on the Mokau transaction is but a short step. Sir John Findlay has made some quite remarkable statements concerning his own attitude towards the Mokau matter. Here are two of them:

SIR JOHN FINDLAY.SIR JOHN FINDLAY August 17. 1910. September 28. 1910 The Government That recommendsdecided to set up a. tion [for the apRoyal Commission— pointment of a Royal and I am entitled to Commission] went to say I supported tint the Cabinet. Jlvnoint motion for eettinc is that I ea'vc no up the Commission, expression of my opinion to my colleagues about it. The first of these two statements was made in the Legislative Council; the second before the Parliamentary Committee which inquired into Mn. Jones's petition. No doubt we shall find Sir John Findlay able to show that_ the two statements are ■ quite consistent, and that it is only oui ignorance that makes them appear otherwise. Many other curious disagreements might be mentioned in connection with the explanations made respecting the Mokau purchase were it worth while; but it is not. Tho public should not be led away from the point at issue: Why did tho Government give this special privilege to a private individual to purchase 50,000 acres of Native land under any conditions; and why did the Government carry through the transaction with such secrecy that the Ordcr-in-Council concerning the intention to permit the sale was not published until after the sale had actually taken place? To all the arguments put forward respecting the benefits likely to accrue to the country from the opening up of this land in this very curious fashion there is one complete and convincing reply: The same results could have been achieved by the Government exercising the power which it possesses of taking over the land itself; and there would then have been this additional advantage that the lingo profits which are now said to have gone into the pockets of private speculators would then have been snared by the State and by the settlers who will take up and work the land. We do not blame the land

syndicate for making a profitable speculation—we do blame the Government for making possible a speculation so , opposed to its own professions and so opposed to the public interest.